The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear power: time for a reasoned debate > Comments

Nuclear power: time for a reasoned debate : Comments

By Dennis Jensen, published 28/6/2005

Dennis Jensen argues the time is right for revisting the debate on nuclear energy for Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
Based on the comments so far, there are three things that I think need to be clarified:

First, one poster presented data on the deaths per TW-hr for various sources, and another poster made then a comment on choosing to be a coal miner (i.e., on public risks vs. worker risks). It needs to be made clear that the deaths per TW-hr presented for fossil fuels like coal only considered industrial (coal plant) accidents and coal mining accidents. That is, it only considered accidents that affect workers. More generally, only immediate deaths clearly attributable to an event were included. Deaths from the effects of pollution (which are statistical in nature, where specific “victims” can’t be identified) are not included. For coal, these pollution-related health risks, which are incurred on the general public (as opposed to voluntary workers) are orders of magnitude greater than the industrial (worker) losses. Most studies estimate that coal plants in the US (for example) cause ~25,000 premature deaths every single year. Worldwide, the figure is hundreds of thousands per year. By contrast, Western (non-Soviet) nuclear power has never released any significant quantity of pollution into the environment, and has never (over its 40-year history) had any measurable effect on public health. Even Chernobyl’s (one time) effects are very small compared to the ANNUAL effects of coal. Even the most conservative (high) estimates suggest on the order of a few thousand eventual deaths (versus hundreds of thousands annually from coal). The maximum consequences of a Western nuclear plant accident, even the worst conceivable event, will be far smaller than Chernobyl, and orders of magnitude smaller than coal’s annual effects.

Whereas you can choose not to be a coal miner, you can’t choose not to breathe the polluted air. It’s also hard to avoid eating mercury contaminated food (like fish). Not only are nuclear’s worker risks far lower than those of coal, its public health risks are orders of magnitude lower.
Posted by Jim, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 11:25:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued.....

Second, concerning the practicality of providing most, or all, of the energy using renewable sources, cost isn’t the primary thing limiting wind’s ability to contribute, nor is having enough land area. It is intermittantcy, i.e., the fact that the wind does not always blow. Currently, and for the foreseeable future, there is no remotely economical way to store such mass quantities of energy. Windfarms, on average, only produce power ~30% of the time. Most experts believe that intermittantcy will limit wind’s contribution to ~15-20% of overall generation. Intermittancy is less of an issue for solar power, which generally produces power at times of peak demand. Unfortunately, the cost for power from solar cells remains at ~25 cents/kW-hr, over five times that of traditional sources. Solar thermal plants (which, unlike solar cells on roofs, require the dedication of large amounts of land area) are cheaper than solar cells, but are still measurably more expensive than coal or nuclear.

Finally, concerning subsidies for coal vs. nuclear, etc… it must be noted that nuclear is generally the least subsidized of all sources, especially if unaccounted pollution effects are counted as a subsidy. The US EPA estimates the costs of coal plant emissions at well over 100 billion per year, none of which is paid for by the coal utilities (i.e., reflected in the coal power cost). By contrast, nuclear power’s “external costs” are negligible. It produces a tiny volume of toxic waste material that is completely contained and isolated from the environment. Nuclear is also required to demonstrate that this material will remain isolated from the environment until it is no longer toxic. All the costs associated with these extremely stringent requirements are fully reflected in the power cost. In the US (anyway), all waste management and disposal (e.g. Yucca Mtn.) activities, as well as all plant decommissioning costs, are fully paid for by the utility, not the government. Scientific estimates of external costs (such as the European Commission’s “ExternE study) show external costs of only ~0.2 cents/kW-hr for nuclear, versus ~5 cents/kW-hr for coal.
Posted by Jim, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 11:31:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, I think there is little doubt that wind farms could provide the required amount of power, on average. The problem is that power consumption cannot be averaged out. Power is consumed at whatever rate prevails at the particular moment in time. As you point out, on that morning in June, there was significant wind at a couple of places, and if the entire wind generation capacity had been at those places, then things would have been fine. But a few days earlier the situation was different, with other places being optimum. The 26th of April is another day when winds were low - indeed, I think the situation was worse on that day.

BTW, wind forecasts for Bass Straight are misleading for this purpose, because they are not a snapshot, but cover a significant period of time.

The issue then is how to cope with significant deviations from the average output. It is not sufficient to say, "oh, then we'll use coal." If coal fired power stations are only run when the wind is low, this alters their economics, and has to be factored into the costs of wind power. In addition, if the total capacity of the system is to be increased to cope with rising demand, then new non-wind capacity has to be built in parallel with the wind capacity to cope with the deviations in wind output.

Elsewhere in the world, pumped storage is being used where hydroelectric generators are reversible. They can take surplus wind power, and pump water up into a reservoir, and later that water can be used to handle shortfalls in wind generation. This can certainly work, but again its cost has to be factored into the cost of wind generation.

These considerations are why I suggested that parts of a solution are not partial solutions. It's much too easy to leave out costs by throwing them over the fence into someone else's camp. This also applies to cogeneration type schemes unless they are completely disjoint from the grid.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 12:00:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvia, just in case you were not aware of it there is a pump storage hydro system at Wivenhoe Dam in SE Qld. Basic details at http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/182.html

This reinforces the conventional generation system. My understanding is that it is used to pump when loads are load and generate when loads are high thereby providing a more even load for the coal fired stations.

It is also able to be brought up to full load very quickly so it is useful if something else falls over.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 12:21:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We could post here for weeks trading links & debating and get nowhere.

Here’s a proposal which I would like feedback on.

We use a multimedia/outlest/format with different stages to gain the information, debate and publicize the topic. In a way it could be similar to what happened with the Republic consultation, true public participation in vital national decisions. Pollies won’t like that though.

First thing we need access to or request a study that independently investigates a cost benefits analysis comparison of:

all energy sources
including energy efficiency
resource recycling –un-recycled waste in landfill out gas and contribute GW- of other factors like land clearing and plantations may be applicable

in the nation wide context of stabilising greenhouse gases to an agreed level to offset or mitigate global warming.

We could request a extended or number of debates on SBS Insight, request that someone like Four Corners and or ABC Catalyst do one or more introduction programmes, one or more Blog debates from experts putting forward their cases in text which could be used with public feedback as a form of public consultation which helps set the context for the Insight debates.

It would be required that the relevant politicians attend for the Live TV debate as well as making themselves available for either live phone in questions and or text questions after the debate.

What is the point of all the interactive media with access to the relevant info if we don’t use it?

An informed debate, with participation from all interested parties including the public isn't that what we want?
What do you think Dennis?
Posted by Neohuman, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 12:59:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is needless fear about nuclear energy on the count of the danger of radiation. Radiation causes damage the same way as other pollution which is by releasing free radicals. Free radicals are quencehed by antioxidants produced in our body or in the diet. If there is an increased risk - as there is for space travel the solution is to increase the antioxidants in the diet. This would be an overall benefit, so why not do it anyhow and take the GST off them? Keith
Posted by kthrex, Wednesday, 29 June 2005 3:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy